M. Claudius Marcellus 229

vol. III p.2760-2764

229) M. Claudius Marcellus

M. Claudius Marcellus M. f. (Dio XL Ind.; cf. nr. 216), was quaestor together with his friend, <page break 2760/2761> Cato the younger, in 689 = 65 (Plut. Cato min. 18, 3), and since then he belonged to the senate. In the year 691 = 63, he supported Cicero against Catiline, and warned him about the threats against his life (Cic. Cat. I 21. Plut. Cic. 15, 1). He probably became aedile in the following years, and 698 = 56 wasn’t the first time he was aedile, as can be concluded by Cic. ad Att. IV 3, 5; there he is referring to nr. 216 instead. On the other hand, <10> there is no doubt that it was M. Marcellus who defended Milo on 2nd February 698 = 56 against the charge de vi, at Cicero’s request (ad Q. fr. II 3, 1). He was praetor at the latest in 700 = 54; in this year, he was part of the defense of M. Aemilius Scaurus (Ascon. Scaur. p. 18). In the year 702 = 52, he helped out Milo again; since Milo was supposed to be charged by A. Manlius Torquatus de ambitu as well as by L. Domitius Ahenobarbus de vi on 4th April, <20> Marcellus appeared to defend him and successfully delayed this trial. He took part in the witness interrogation during the murder case; even on the first day, he was threatened so much by Clodius’ followers that he had to put himself under the protection of the presiding [judge]; in the following days, under the protection of Pompey’s soldiers, he was able to lead the interrogation with Cicero (Ascon. Milon. p. 30. 34. 35). As a follower of Pompey and an opponent of Caesar, <30> he was elected consul for 703 = 51 with Ser. Sulpicius Rufus (inscription from Grumentum CIL I 617 = X 220. Chronogr. Idat. Chron. Pasch. Cic. ad fam. XII 15, 2. Sall. hist. I 9 Kr. = I 11 Maur. Liv. ep. CVIII. Cassiod. Schol. Bob. Vatin. p. 320 Or. Dio XL Ind. 58, 3). Marcellus considered his main task to be thwart Caesar’s renewed campaign for the consulship (Liv. ep. CVIII. Appian. bell. civ. II 25; Plut. Caes. 29, 1 doesn’t differentiate the various Marcelli who followed after one another in the consulships; Eutrop. VI 19, 2 and Oros. VI 15, 1 similarly blend together the consuls of 703 and 704). <40> He very quickly began a diplomatic campaign by using an edict to announce that he wanted to make a speech de summa re publica, and he started preparing proposals about Caesar’s return from Gaul before the legal time-slot, and about the invalidity of Caesar’s distributions of citizenships in the transpadanian area (Suet. Caes. 28). <50> First, he made mention of the latter event, and didn’t shy away from drawing out the practical consequences from it; Caesar had lead new colonists to the Latin colony Novum Comum and had given them Roman citizenship with the deduction; Marcellus had a senator of the colony who was staying in Rome be beaten with sticks, and through that he showed Caesar that he didn’t recognise any citizenship he had given out (Cic. ad Att. V 2, 3. 11, 2. Plut. Caes. 29, 1; somewhat deviating Appian. bell. civ. II 26; cf. Mommsen CIL V p. 565; St.-R. III 640, 2). <60> The most important matter which had to have busied the senate - the matter over the governorship of Gaul - was put off, despite the pressure Marcellus had been putting on. He himself had confirmed the 1st July for the matter to be dealt with, but willingly let this date fall to the side again, and for a while afterwards, he was unable to bring about any fully-attended meetings (Cael. ad fam. VIII 1, 2. 2, 2. 5, 3). <page break 2761/2762> This was first achieved on 30th September; Marcellus gave a speech and made his demands in line with Caesar’s resolute opponents - that his governorship should end on 1st March 705 = 49, and that he shouldn’t be allowed to put himself forward for the consulship while being absent. In the following debate, only Cato made it clear that he was absolutely in favour of the consul’s request; <10> Pompey’s reservedness and the majority of the senate - before the outward rifts between them and Caesar - caused him to be unsuccessful, and delayed the final decision to the 1st March of the following year, and halved the measures (Cael. ad fam. VIII 8, 5f. Cic. ad fam. IV 9, 2; ad Att. VIII 3, 3. Liv. ep. CVIII. Suet. Caes. 28f. Appian. bell. civ. II 26. Dio XL 59, 1; cf. Mommsen Die Rechtsfrage zwischen Caesar und dem Senat [Breslau 1857] 51). With these decisions, it was made difficult for Marcellus to take further action; <20> it was even now in his own interests for no other [decisions] to be made about the provinces. Cicero had already appealed to him in September by sending him a letter, which, after complimenting his outstanding conduct, as well as his keen support of C. Marcellus’ campaign for consul in 704 = 50 (on this, cf. ad fam. IV 9, 2), requested that he aim to get Cicero called back from the governorship of Cilicia soon (ad fam. XI 9); <30> but two months later, Caelius reports that the consuls would have done nothing for that, nor would they have done anything against the danger of the Parthians (ad fam. VIII 10, 2f.): plane nihil video ante Kal. Ianuarias agi posse: nosti Marcellum, quam tardus et parum efficax sit, itemque Servius quam cunctator; cuiusmodi putas hos esse aut quam id, quod nolint, conficere posse, qui quae cupiunt, tamen ita frigide agunt, ut nolle existimentur? [I can clearly see that nothing can be done before the Kalends of January (1st January); you know Marcellus, how slow and inefficient he is, and Servius, how much he puts things off; how do you think these people are, or, how do you think they would be able to do what they don’t want to do, if they carry out what they do want to do so coldly that it looks like they don’t want to do it?]. <40> In spite of this unfavourable judgement, Marcellus’ outcome should be recognised. In the year 704 = 50, he suggested negotiating with the tribunes of the plebs in order to put a stop to the opposition of one of them - Curio, the Caesarian - against the decisions of the senate (Cael. ad fam. VIII 13, 2). On 1st January 705 = 49, independent from Caesar’s opponents and not blindly, he wanted to priorities Pompey’s affairs above those of the senate; he wanted to delay the declaration of war until the conscriptions were finished and the senate had military support, <50> but the majority didn’t listen to him (Caes. bell. civ. I 2, 2. 5. Cic. ad fam. IV 7, 2). With keener eyes than they had, Marcellus had foreseen the unfortunate conclusion of the battle; he didn’t trust Pompey, nor did Pompey trust him, meaning that Marcellus played no real part in the war itself, but instead advised towards restraint and reconciliation (Cic. ad fam. IV 7, 2. 9, 3; Marc. 16). <60> Unfortunately however, he remained in the party he had taken, and he scorned the pointless continuation of the battle just as much as the mercy of the victor. M. Brutus, one of Caesar’s murderers, in order to show that virtue is not lessened by any outside misfortune (Sen. cons. ad Helv. 8, 1) in a work de virtute written in 708 = 46 (mentioned by Cicero, whom it was dedicated to, de fin. I 8; Tusc. V 1), <page break 2762/2763> says that he had visited Marcellus in exile in Mytilene for a short while (the stopping-place is also in Cic. ad fam. IV 7, 4. Val. Max. IX 11, 4; Schol. Gronov. p. 418 incorrectly names this instead of the place of his death, Athens); he also says that the strength of character of a man who filled his unintended idle time with academic studies and rhetorical practice (cf. Cic. ad fam. IV 9, 3: honesto otio [during an honest leisure]) had filled him with the highest wonder: <10> visum sibi se magis in exsilium ire, qui sine illo rediturus esset, quam illum in exsilio relinqui [It seemed more to him like he was the one going into exile, rather than leaving that man in exile, since he would be leaving that man behind] (Sen. cons. ad Helv. 9, 4-10, 1). Brutus’ work was probably already available to Cicero when Cicero had him say the following about Marcellus: vidi enim Mytilenis nuper virum atque, ut dixi, vidi plane virum [Recently, in Mytilene, I saw a man, and, as I have said, I clearly saw a man] (Brut. 250). It was clearly in the old party members’ interests - who had become subordinate to the victor - to win such a man over to their own views. <20> Like his cousin C. Marcellus, before the decision, had tried to keep Cicero in Italy so that he could remain there with decency too, so too did he now try to get Marcus to recognise the new circumstances, and he was supported in this by Cicero who shared his motives. Because of this, in the summer of 708 = 46, Cicero sent more letters to the exiled man (ad fam. IV 7-9) which always stressed anew and urgently that, in order to be pardoned - <30> for all possible reasons, eg. to save his property - he could do nothing better than to settle into the existing circumstances, and make his peace with the new order. Caesar didn’t shy away from making these comments either, but they remained with no effect on Marcellus. Caesar’s father-in-law, L. Calpurnius Piso, commemorated Marcellus in a meeting of the senate in September, then C. Marcellus threw himself at Caesar’s feet to beg for his pardon, <40> and the whole senate joined in with this request. Caesar had previously passed by Mytilene, where Marcellus was staying, without bothering him (Brutus in Sen. cons. ad Helv. 9, 6), and had decided to pardon him, but first he reproached the absent man in a speech with all the hostile acts he had done against him, before stating that he wanted to defer to the senate and grant him forgiveness. <50> His clemency, though it was probably calculated, made such an impression that Cicero believed it was finally the beginning of better times, broke his long-held silence, and in an over-enthusiastic speech, which is given the vague title of pro M. Marcello oratio, and which is often incorrectly suspected to have been fictitious, he expresses his and the senate’s gratitude towards Caesar (a report on the events ad fam. IV 3, 3f. an Ser. Sulpicius Rufus; who mentions this to Marcellus himself ibid. 11, 1; cf. ibid. VI 6, 10 and the sections of the speech p. Marc. 3. 10. 13. 33; Ligar. 37. Schol. Gronov. argum. p. 418f.; cf. 415 Or. Liv. ep. CXV. Val. Max. IX 11, 4. Sen. cons. ad Helv. 9, 6). <60> Marcellus still hesitated a while longer to accept Caesar’s pardon; in a cold letter rejecting it (ad fam. IV 11), he thanked Cicero for his efforts, which were valuable to him as evidence of their friendship, but the result of which seemed to him to be irrelevant, <page break 2763/2764> and once more Cicero encourages him to return home just as Marcellus had done to him before (ad fam. IV 10). In the end, Marcellus found that he was obliged to comply with them, but before he reached Italy, what Cicero had prophesied for him came true (ibid. IV 9, 4). Ser. Sulpicius Rufus, proconsul of Achaia at the time, reported about it to Cicero: on 23rd May 709 = 45, his previous colleague in the consulship, Marcellus, <10> whom people knew was on his way home, had been together with him in Piraeus; on the night of the 26th, he suddenly received the news that Marcellus had been lethally wounded by one of his companions, Magius Cilo. ------, and that Marcellus had succumbed to his wounds before daybreak. He didn’t see him alive again, but he put on a worthy funeral for him; he was buried in the academy, <20> where the Athenians wanted to set up a marble funerary monument for him (ad fam. IV 12; other reports Liv. ep. CXV. Val. Max. IX 11, 4). Cicero was deeply shaken by this news; he and other people had suspected that Caesar had instigated the murder, and Brutus felt obliged to show this suspicion to be undeserved and incorrect, and even managed to persuade Cicero (ad Att. XIII 10, 1. 3; cf. 22, 2). In doing so, <30> he also mentioned the character trait which made Marcellus stand out above all others and which he had put into practice often: his constancy and consistency (credo … illum, ut erat, constantius respondisse [I believe that he, as he was, had responded with more constancy] ad Att. XIII 10, 3); about other character traits, see Caelius’ opinion above. Marcellus was notable as an orator (he was elected consul διὰ τὴν τῶν λὀγων δύναμιν [because of the power of his words] Dio XL 58, 3. Marcellus loquax [talkative Marcellus] Lucan. I 313 according to Caesar, cited by Schol. Grovon. p. 418); <40> aside from Cicero himself, Caesar, and Sulpicius Rufus, he is one of the only living orators talked about in ‘Brutus’, because he took Cicero as an example and modelled himself after him successfully (Cic. Brut. 248-250; cf. Marc. 2. Quintil. inst. or. X 1, 88).

[Münzer.]

This article is referenced by: C. Claudius Marcellus (216)

Cicero, Against Catiline 1